Jharkhand High Court
Ram Charitra Saw vs Smt. Sulochana Devi & Others on 21 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
S.A. No. 90 of 2020
........
Ram Charitra Saw .... ..... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sulochana Devi & Others .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents :
........
03/21.01.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Arun Kumar.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per
instruction, appellant wants to withdraw this appeal.
The Second Appeal has been preferred against the concurrent finding
of two courts with regard to eviction.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the present
appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 12.02.2020 and decree
signed on 17.02.2020 passed by learned District Judge-XIV, Dhanbad in
Civil Appeal No. 184/2018, whereby the judgment dated 01.10.2018 and
decree dated 12.10.2018 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division 1 st,
Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 14/2014 has been affirmed and the suit
has been decreed on contest against the defendant / tenant without any costs.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that one year time
may be granted to vacate the premises as the appellant - Ram Charitra Saw
is aged about 73 years and he requires time to vacate the same and allow the
appellant to withdraw the appeal.
Considering such submission, this Court is perusing the impugned
judgment passed by both the courts below. From perusal of the same, it
appears that original plaintiff Manoj Kumar Gupta has filed Title (Eviction)
Suit No. 14/2014 for eviction of Ram Charitar Saw (defendant / tenant /
appellant) from the tenanted premises 64 feet x 24 feet, under Plot No. 2759,
Khata No. 499, Mouza - Jharia under P.S. Jharia, Dhanbad along with cost
of the suit.
The trial court has framed as many as seven issues on 18.08.2016:
(1) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and
whether the plaintiffs have got valid cause of action to file the same ?
(2) Whether the suit is barred under the provisions of the
Limitation Act or Specific Relief Act or Jharkhand Building (Lease,
Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 or the Principles of Waiver,
Estoppel and Acquiescence ?
(3) Whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists between
the plaintiff and the defendant ?
(4) Whether the defendant is a willful defaulter in payment of
rent from November, 2013 and afterwards for two months in
relation to the suit premises ?
(5) Whether the plaintiff has his bonafide requirement of the
tenanted premises for his personal use ?
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendant
and recovery of vacant possession of the suit premises on the
ground of default in payment of rent by the defendant and his
personal necessity ?
(7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any other relief or
reliefs ?
The plaintiff has examined two witnesses i.e. P.W.-1 Manoj Kumar
Gupta and P.W.-2 Pawan Kumar Gupta in support of his case and also
exhibited certain documents i.e. Exhibit-1 - Sale deed no. 128 dated
17.01.1946, Exhibit-2 and 2/a - Signature of Manoj Kumar Gupta and B.K.
Mishra Advocate on the last page of the plaint and Exhibit- 3 and 3/a - Copy
of Advocate Notice and couriers receipt.
The defendant has also examined two witnesses i.e. D.W.-1
Ramcharitra Saw and D.W.-2 Manish Kumar Saw, but no documentary
evidence has been filed.
The learned trial court has considered the entire issues and decided
most of the issues in favour of the plaintiff / landlord / respondent except
Issue No. (5), i.e. Personal necessity has been decided against the plaintiff.
Appeal was preferred by the defendant / tenant before the learned
appellate court against the substituted heirs of original plaintiff namely, Smt.
Sulochana Devi, wife of Late Manoj Kumar Gupta, Abhishek Kumar Gupta,
son of Late Manoj Kumar Gupta and Anil Gupta, son of Late Manoj Kumar
Gupta.
Learned appellate court has also framed two points for determination
of appeal, which are as follows:
Point No. I:- Is there relationship of landlord and tenant in between
the plaintiff and the defendant ?
Point No. II:- Is the defendant liable to be evicted from the suit
property due to default in payment of rent ?
Both the points have been dealt by the learned lower appellate court
and affirmed the judgment passed by the learned trial court.
From perusal of the record, it appears that the issue with regard to the
personal necessity has been decided against the plaintiff, for which plaintiff
has not preferred any appeal. However, under the aforesaid circumstances,
the judgment passed by the learned court below with regard to default is
concerned, the same has been concurred by both the courts below, as such,
this Court is not inclined to exercise power under Section 100 C.P.C.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on merits.
However, considering prayer made by the appellant that one year time
may be granted to vacate the premises, this Court thinks it proper to give
three months time from the date when physical court starts in Dhanbad Civil
Court to the appellant / defendant / tenant to vacate the premises in view of
the World Wide Pandemic Covid-19, but the appellant / defendant / tenant
shall file an affidavit before the learned trial court that he is inclined to
vacate the premises. If the condition is not fulfilled by filing affidavit by
appellant (tenant), the Executing Court is directed to proceed and execute the
decree, as there is violation of undertaking given before this Court.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil/-
